PHC questions DC's TikTok activity
The Peshawar High Court (PHC) has sought a response from the Director of the Performance Management and Reforms Unit (PMRU) over a petition challenging the Deputy Commissioner (DC) of Swabi's act of sharing a video from an event at Women University Swabi on social media platform TikTok.
A division bench comprising Justice Syed Arshad Ali and Justice Dr. Khurshid Iqbal heard the petition filed by Advocate Muhammad Hamdan on Thursday. The petitioner informed the court that the DC attended multiple events, recorded videos, and shared them on his personal TikTok account instead of an official government platform.
He argued that while the government permits the use of platforms like Facebook and Twitter for official communication, the use of TikTok by public officials is unauthorized and raises serious privacy concerns — particularly when such content features individuals without their consent.
Justice Arshad Ali inquired where the TikTok video was filmed. The court was told that the DC recorded the video during a ceremony at Women University Swabi and uploaded it from his personal account. The video included footage of female students, allegedly shared without their permission.
Advocate Hamdan further argued that public officials are only permitted to share content through official government websites or verified accounts. At this point, Justice Arshad Ali questioned whether any departmental representative was present, to which the Additional Advocate General responded that none were in attendance.
Expressing concern, Justice Arshad Ali remarked, "What is going on here? These officers have created pages for self-promotion. This isn't for official useit's personal branding on social media."
Following a brief recess, the Deputy Director of PMRU appeared before the court. Justice Arshad Ali asked him whether PMRU had issued any notification allowing such social media accounts and questioned the basis upon which every officer had started their own pages and was sharing all kinds of content.
The court directed PMRU to frame clear Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and submit a detailed report within 10 days. Justice Arshad Ali also cited a recent case where a District Police Officer used inappropriate language regarding civil judges on social media, emphasizing the need for regulation.
"The purpose of these accounts should be strictly official," he stressed. "We are monitoring everything. Videos featuring university students should not be shared online." The hearing was adjourned until July 10, with clear instructions for PMRU to submit its report before the next session.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
a day ago
- Express Tribune
Judicial credibility hangs in balance
Listen to article As the Supreme Court's Constitutional Bench (CB) gears up to resume hearing on review petitions against the majority verdict in the reserved seats case on Thursday, speculation is swirling about the direction of the decision and the political tremors it may unleash. Experts believe the ruling will rest on how the court chooses to read the Constitution: either with a microscope or a magnifying glass. Former additional attorney general Waqar Rana notes that the fate of the case hinges on two distinct interpretative approaches to the Constitution: a literal and pedantic reading, treating the Constitution as an ordinary statute or a liberal and organic interpretation that upholds foundational constitutional values. "It is a test of the judiciary when judging the state (Paula Newberg) whether it follows and upholds the Constitution by approaching it with the latter rules of interpretation or it follows the former rules," Rana stated. He added that from a historical perspective, the judiciary has been split into two camps: one aligned with the tradition of Justice Cornelius and the other with that of Justice Munir. "Choices are simple. The Court either follows constitutional faith or continues with idolatry of necessity. In the ultimate analysis, the faith of people in the judicial system as an independent arbiter of justice and the rule of law is at stake." The reserved seats case is pivotal in determining whether Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) secures 23 additional National Assembly seats, which would significantly affect the power balance in the lower house and determine whether the ruling coalition secures a two-thirds majority. To date, the judgment authored by Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah – and endorsed by seven other judges – has not been implemented by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), despite being nearly a year old. Observers note that four judicial opinions were rendered in the case. Among them is the second opinion, authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and supported by then chief justice Qazi Faez Isa. This view, widely referred to as the "Mandokhail Formula," allows PTI some representation in the National Assembly. Should this view be endorsed by a new majority, the ruling coalition could achieve a two-thirds majority, while PTI reclaims a parliamentary presence. A senior lawyer commented that endorsement of Justice Mandokhail's view could offer a "win-win situation" for both the government and PTI: the ruling alliance gets its supermajority, and PTI regains entry into Parliament. The third opinion was penned by Justice Aminuddin Khan, head of the CB, and Justice Naeem Akhtar Afghan. They dismissed the Sunni Ittehad Council's (SIC) petition, upholding both the Peshawar High Court and ECP decisions, which held that reserved seats could not be allocated to SIC. Their opinion called for the redistribution of the 78 unallocated seats among all qualifying parties, especially the PML-N and PPP. Justice Amin's role as the CB's presiding judge gives his position added weight, and notably, six new judges have joined the current bench. However, none of the six judges who were part of the original bench are included in the review proceedings. Even two judges who had earlier endorsed the majority order are not publicly supporting the July 12 judgement in court. One judge, during recent hearings, even used the term "biased" to describe the original majority decisionan unprecedented move that has added further uncertainty to the case's outcome. Meanwhile, debate is growing over whether the new majority will side with Justice Amin's stance or adopt the Mandokhail formula. Legal insiders note that although two judges – Justice Ayesha Malik and Justice Aqeel Ahmad Abbasi – have already dismissed the review petitions and their votes will count in the final decision, many believe the July 12 majority judgement may not survive the ongoing review. Some pro-government legal voices claim that the 27th Constitutional Amendment is under discussion, allegedly aiming to restructure judicial authority over the long term. This has reignited debate on whether judicial independence, a core feature of the Constitution, is being preserved or compromised. Notably, petitions challenging the 26th Constitutional Amendment have yet to be scheduled by the CB, despite repeated calls from senior SC judges. Observers argue that the judges who benefited from the 26th Amendment appear less concerned about judicial independence than those who were sidelined by it. Though the government appears confident about the outcome, the bench is reportedly eager to conclude the review proceedings swiftly. PTI's counsel, Hamid Khan, has requested adjournment until August 5, citing his general adjournment, but sources suggest the court is unlikely to delay proceedings, especially with judges' summer vacations already in effect.
Business Recorder
2 days ago
- Business Recorder
Australia regulator and YouTube spar over under-16s social media ban
SYDNEY: Australia's internet watchdog and YouTube exchanged barbs on Tuesday after the regulator urged the government to reverse a planned exemption for the Alphabet-owned video-sharing platform from its world-first teen social media ban. The quarrel adds an element of uncertainty to the December rollout of a law being watched by governments and tech leaders around the world as Australia seeks to become the first country to fine social media firms if they fail to block users aged under 16. The centre-left Labor government of Anthony Albanese has previously said it would give YouTube a waiver, citing the platform's use for education and health. Meta to introduce teen accounts for Facebook Other social media companies such as Meta's Facebook and Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok have argued such an exemption would be unfair. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant said she wrote to the government last week to say there should be no exemptions when the law takes effect. She added that the regulator's research found 37% of children aged 10 to 15 reported seeing harmful content on YouTube - the most of any social media site. 'This is not a fair fight where our kids are concerned, vis-a-vis social media sites,' Inman Grant told the National Press Club in Sydney. She said social media companies deployed 'persuasive design features' like recommendation-based algorithms and notifications to keep users online and 'YouTube has mastered those, opaque algorithms driving users down rabbit holes they're powerless to fight against'. YouTube, in a blog post, accused Inman Grant of giving inconsistent and contradictory advice, which discounted the government's own research which found 69% of parents considered the video platform suitable for people under 15. 'The eSafety commissioner chose to ignore this data, the decision of the Australian Government and other clear evidence from teachers and parents that YouTube is suitable for younger users,' wrote Rachel Lord, YouTube's public policy manager for Australia and New Zealand. Inman Grant, asked about surveys supporting a YouTube exemption, said she was more concerned 'about the safety of children and that's always going to surpass any concerns I have about politics or being liked or bringing the public onside'. A spokesperson for Communications Minister Anika Wells said the minister was considering the online regulator's advice and her 'top priority is making sure the draft rules fulfil the objective of the Act and protect children from the harms of social media'.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
CB issues notice on CSS exemption plea
A constitutional bench (CB) of the Supreme Court on Monday issued notice to the federation on a petition filed against induction of officers from armed forces in the civil bureaucracy without any written examination. A five-member CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan took up a petition filed through Ali Azeem Afridi. During the hearing the lawyer contended that civilian candidates desirous of joining the Central Superior Services (CSS) are mandated to sit a written exam as well as an interview. However, officers from armed forces are exempted from the written exam. When Justice Ali Baqar Najafi, a member of the bench, asked the counsel as to which of his fundamental rights are violated by this provision, he replied that this provision was discriminatory. The CB issued notice to the federation under Section 3 of the Civil Services Rules, 1956 and adjourned the case for three weeks. The CSS refers to the elite civil service of Pakistan through which bureaucrats and government officers are recruited to various federal departments and ministries. Conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC), the purpose of the CSS exam is to recruit officers for the Grade-17 posts in various federal government services. This exam includes written tests of compulsory and optional subjects, psychological assessment and a viva voce or interview. The bench, while hearing a petition regarding the inclusion of life skills education in schools, summoned the federal and provincial education secretaries. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar remarked that the presence of all secretaries would help develop a joint strategy. The additional attorney general informed the court that life skills education is already being taught in Islamabad's schools. Justice Mazhar emphasized that all provinces must formulate a policy in coordination with the federal government. Salman Akram Raja pointed out that Punjab and the federal government have submitted their responses but copies have not been provided to them. The court expressed displeasure over the absence of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's representative. The court directed that copies of all provincial responses be shared with the petitioner's counsel and adjourned the hearing for an indefinite period. During the hearing of an appeal related to the appointment of vice-chancellors in universities, Justice Mazhar inquired whether the rector and president of Islamabad's International Islamic University had been appointed. The lawyer responded that the rector has not been permanently appointed and currently holds an acting charge. The university's lawyer informed the court that the president of the International Islamic University has been appointed but he has not yet taken charge due to being in Saudi Arabia.
